For those interested in the changes in the RHS hybrid registration system that are being caused by DNA-based taxonomy, there is an interesting article by Alec Pridgeon in the current issue of "Orchids". In addition to reviewing the necessity of major changes, Alec proposes a way to avoid the quagmire that would result from retroactively changing all hybrid names to agree with new generic alignments. Although this may not provide a satisfactory solution for everyone, it's interesting and thought provoking. In short, he suggests that hybrids be registered as members of a breeding group rather than being given a synthetic, intergeneric name such as Colmanara or Potinara. In his system, breeding groups would have an -ana ending, so we would have Oncidiana Wildcat or Laeliana Hoku Gem.

The advantage is that breeding groups are broadly defined and likely to remain quite stable, even if there are further changes in the names of genera within a breeding group. In addition, hybrid names would be vastly simplified because instead of the proliferation of Nothogenera (intergeneric names now being used), there are only a few breeding groups that are frequently used to make hybrids. Without checking extensively I come up with Laeliana, Oncidiana, Pluerothallidana, Vandana, Maxillariana, Cymbidiana, Dendrobiana, and Cypripediana. I've probably left out a few (Bulbophyllums?), but the total number of breeding groups is likely to be less than 20, as opposed to the hundreds of Nothogenera now in use or contemplated.

If this or something like it were to be accepted, future changes in generic affiliation would help us understand our plants and our hybridizing programs better, without leading to the consternation of frequent changes to our plant labels or our memory banks.

My two cents,
--
Steve Beckendorf
Berkeley, California

_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com

Reply via email to